HDHPs Do Not Slow Down Health Care Spending: Study

A new study has found that high-deductible health plans have only a limited effect on the growth of health care spending for people who sign on for these plans.

The National Bureau of Economic Research researched HDHPs over a period of four years and found they failed to control health spending any more than traditional preferred provider organization plans (PPOs) and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The only statistically significant impact on lower growth by HDHPs was on more expensive pharmaceuticals.

The news comes as HDHPs continue growing in use and popularity among employers and some of their workers. They are often paired with a health savings account that allows participants to set aside a portion of their wages before taxes in special accounts used to pay for health-related expenses, including deductibles.

When HDHPs first came on the scene they were touted as a potential cost-saver. The logic went that when the worker has more skin in the game and has to pay more for their medical care and medications, they will shop around for the lowest-cost service or drug.

Here are the main findings of the report:

  • Covered workers who switched from low-deductible plans to high-deductible plans saw lower growth rates of spending, but for no more than a year.
  • HDHPs seem to discourage the use of less cost-effective drugs. The report surmised that’s because people with these plans will be more motivated to shop around for better prices, like from an online pharmacy.

Considerations

PPOs continue to be the most popular choice among employees and HDHPs continue growing as employers look to cut their and their employees’ premium expenditures, according to a recent report by Benefitfocus, a benefits technology company. HDHPs currently account for about 30% of group health plans in play.

Also, some employees prefer having an HDHP as they can save money up front on the premium.

Over the past few years, employers have noticed that younger and healthier workers will gravitate towards HDHPs when offered them, as they will usually not need much health care and they are willing to trade a lower up-front premium for the small likelihood that they will need a significant amount of medical care, which they would have to pay for out of pocket.

However, workers in their 40s and older are more apt to stick to their PPO or HMO plans, which have higher premiums but lower out-of-pocket maximums.

But the authors of the National Bureau of Economic Research report said that for some people with health problems, HDHPs “may have high adverse health consequences when patients delay, reduce, or forgo care to curb costs, even when costs are moderate compared to health benefits.”

The takeaway

There is no doubt that HDHPs will continue growing in use, but they are not for everyone. Employers that give their workers an option of choosing an HDHP or a traditional PPO plan will be able to better cater to the different needs of their workers.

This is important as the U.S. workforce becomes more diversified, and for employers with multi-generational employee pools.

Group Health Plans Must Cover COVID-19 Testing for Asymptomatic People

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in late February that private group health plans cannot deny coverage or impose cost-sharing for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, regardless of whether or not the patient is experiencing symptoms or has been exposed to someone with the disease.

The CMS said it had issued the new guidance to make it easier for people to get tested with no out-of-pocket costs if they are planning to visit family members or take a flight, for example. Up until now, some health plans have not covered testing if a person is not experiencing symptoms or has not come into contact with someone who is later confirmed as being infected with COVID-19.

The guidance covers the part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 that required that plans and issuers must cover COVID-19 diagnostic testing without any cost-sharing requirements, prior authorization or other medical management requirements. Still, many people were denied getting tests because they had no symptoms or hadn’t been exposed to someone infected with the virus. 

According to the guidance:

“Plans and issuers must provide coverage without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements for COVID-19 diagnostic testing of asymptomatic individuals when the purpose of the testing is for individualized diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19.

“However, plans and issuers are not required to provide coverage of testing such as for public health surveillance or employment purposes. But there is also no prohibition or limitation on plans and issuers providing coverage for such tests.”

HHS Proposes Higher Cost-Sharing Limits for 2022

The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed cost-sharing limits that would apply to all Affordable Care Act-compliant health insurance policies for the 2022 policy year.

The ACA imposes annual out-of-pocket maximums on the amount that an enrollee in a non-grandfathered health plan, including self-insured and group health plans, must pay for essential health benefits through cost-sharing.

This means that health plans are not allowed to require their enrollees to pay more than the maximum in a given year for health services. 

The proposed 2022 out-of-pocket maximums are $9,100 for self-only coverage and $18,200 for family coverage. This represents an approximate 6.4% increase over 2021 limits. For 2021, the out-of-pocket maximums are $8,550 and $17,100, respectively.

Penalties to rise

Applicable large employers (ALEs) — employers with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent workers who are required to offer their employees health insurance under the ACA — can face large penalties known as “shared responsibility” assessments if they have at least one full-time employee who enrolls in public marketplace coverage and receives a premium tax credit. There are two types of infractions with different penalty amounts:

The “play or pay” penalty — This can be levied when an ALE fails to offer minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of its full-time employees and their dependent children during a month, and at least one of its full-time employees receives a premium tax credit through a public marketplace.

The per-employee penalty will rise to $2,880 in 2022 from the current $2,700.

The “play and pay” penalty — An ALE can be hit by this penalty if it offers minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of its full-time employees but a full-time employee receives a premium tax credit because: (1) the employer-offered coverage is unaffordable or fails to provide minimum value, or (2) the employee was not offered employer-sponsored coverage.

For 2022, the maximum annual assessment for each full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit will be an estimated $4,320, up from the current $4,060.

IRS Lets Employers Give Workers a Break on FSA Contributions, Health Plan Rules

New guidance from the Internal Revenue Service allows employers to temporarily give their employees extra benefits leeway in making changes to their flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs).

The guidance, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, also allows employees to make changes to their health plans outside of the traditional open enrollment period.

The COVID relief bill signed into law at the end of 2020 changed the tax law. The law ordinarily requires employees to make irrevocable plan choices before the first day of the plan year; later changes are normally permitted only under certain circumstances, such as a change in employee status.

However, 2020 was an abnormal year. For example, stay-at-home orders left employees with unused money in their dependent care FSAs because they unexpectedly did not have to pay for child daycare.

The temporary changes

Recognizing the current extraordinary situation, the new guidance makes several temporary changes:

  • Employers can permit employees to carry over unused funds from their 2020 FSAs to 2021, and from 2021 to 2022. Ordinarily, these accounts have a “use it or lose it” rule under which the employee forfeits unused funds at the end of the year.
    If an employee contributed $5,000 to a dependent care FSA in 2020 but used only $3,000 because he or she worked from home, they can now carry the remaining $2,000 forward for use in 2021.
  • Alternatively, employers can extend the grace period for employees to spend unused FSA funds. Normally, employees have two and a half months from the end of the plan year to spend the money on qualifying expenses. The temporary rules permit employers to give them up to 12 months to do it.
  • Employers can allow certain employees to use dependent care FSA funds for care of children up to age 14. The normal cut-off age is 13.
  • Employers may allow employees to change their future contributions to 2021 FSAs mid-year, something that is ordinarily prohibited.
  • Employers may also permit employees to make mid-year health plan changes. Employees who did not enroll in the employer’s health plan during open enrollment will be able to do so.
    Employees can change available plans, or they can drop coverage entirely if they can show that they have replacement coverage such as through a spouse’s employer.
  • If an employee changes from a high-deductible health plan to one with copayments or lower deductibles (or vice versa), employers can also permit them to switch mid-year between contributing to an HSA or an FSA. By law, an HSA must be coupled with an HDHP.
  • Lastly, they can allow employees who stop contributing to a health care FSA mid-year to receive reimbursements through the end of the plan year.

It is important to know that:

  • The law does not require employers to make these changes.
  • The changes expire for plan years starting in 2022 and later.

The pandemic has been difficult for employers and employees alike. These temporary changes will make it a little easier for both to cope.

The Top Five Health Conditions Driving Insurance Costs

A new study has identified the top five health conditions that are driving the overall cost of group health plan outlays, and without which spending would actually be falling.

The report is enlightening, and employers can use the findings to offer programs aimed at education and prevention to help control their employees’ health care costs and cut into health insurance premiums paid by both employers and workers.

Inspecting its study data for trends, the Health Action Council (HAC) determined that 63% of its covered lives had at least one of five conditions that were driving health care costs. Most of these top five conditions are preventable or treatable with lifestyle modifications that employers can encourage. 

Here’s a look at the five conditions and the burden they put on your employees and your company:

Asthma

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for asthma treatment are increasing on average 6.4% a year. This is one of the most prevalent health conditions in the country. Three important stats:

  • The incidence of asthma was 31% higher among women than men.
  • The incidence of asthma among African American covered lives was 20% more prevalent than among other races.
  • The average age of HAC members with asthma was 31.9, two years younger than the overall membership average age of 33.9.

Diabetes

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for diabetic treatment are also increasing 6.4% a year. Three important stats:

  • Diabetes was 20% more common in men than women among the HAC’s enrollees.
  • The average age of HAC plan enrollees with diabetes was 52.
  • Although Asian covered lives amounted to only 3% of the HAC enrollees, they had the highest incidence of diabetes of all racial groups.

Hypertension

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for hypertension treatment are increasing 6.3% a year. Three important stats:

  • Hypertension was 23% more common in men than women.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with hypertension was 53.1.
  • The risk of African Americans developing hypertension was 63% more than for other races.

Back disorders

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for back treatment are increasing 3.4% a year. Three important stats:

  • Back disorders were 27% more common in women than men.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with back disorders was 43.3.
  • Caucasian HAC members had 14% higher back disorder prevalence than other races.

Mental health, substance abuse

Average costs paid per member of the HAC for mental health and substance abuse treatment are increasing 2.7% a year. Three important stats:

  • Mental health and substance abuse problems were 39% more common in women than men.
  • The average age among HAC enrollees with mental health and substance abuse issues was 32.8.
  • Caucasian HAC members had 20% higher mental health and substance abuse issues than other races.

The takeaway

To help workers with these conditions, the report recommends:

  • Creating and implementing simple education and targeted wellness programs to address common conditions among your employees.
  • Instituting an exercise, stretch or meditation program at the beginning of a work shift to improve safety and decrease injuries. These types of practices are preventative and may decrease the severity of an injury if one occurs.
  • Evaluating benefit plan design for opportunities to implement continuum-of-care protocols. For example, employers can make chiropractic care or physical therapy mandatory for back disorders before moving to more aggressive treatments.
  • Covering medications for specific common chronic conditions as preventative care. Another option is to promote the use of patient assistance programs for medicines that may be excluded in your plan’s drug formulary.
  • Promoting virtual care for specific conditions; for example, mental health support if you have staff in rural areas.
  • Working with your health insurer or medical expert(s) to identify opportunities for provider outreach and education to your workers.

CMS Approves Medicare Coverage of ‘Breakthrough’ Medical Devices

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has issued new rules that require Medicare to cover medical devices that the Food and Drug Administration designates as “breakthrough” technology. 

The rule paves the way for giving Medicare recipients access to the latest technologies four years after they receive market approval by the FDA. The move should greatly speed up the time by which these new devices are covered by Medicare, the approval process of which can be extremely slow.

Under the final rule, the CMS will use the data for these devices during the four years after the FDA approves them, to evaluate them based on clinical and real-world experiences. If the data shows they are effective, the CMS could move to approve them for coverage under Medicare. 

The CMS said the rule was necessary because the current process hinders innovative technologies from getting to Medicare beneficiaries. Companies that make the breakthrough devices currently have to receive approval from the FDA and then receive approval for Medicare coverage, which costs them both time and funds.

Examples of breakthrough devices that were approved in 2020 include:

  • Innovative stents
  • Heart valve replacements
  • Advanced lab tests
  • Automatic defibrillator machines.

To further reduce the time it takes for Medicare to approve a device after FDA approval, the CMS has created a special “breakthrough” approval timeline that the FDA can use to approve innovative devices and potentially life-saving equipment.

Along with the expedited pathway to FDA approval, Medicare may automatically cover FDA-approved products for up to four years. After four years or the given timeframe for coverage, the CMS can reassess whether it will continue covering the device based on patient outcomes.

Qualifying requirements

Covered devices would have to fit Medicare statutory definitions of “reasonable and necessary” for treating patients. To that end, the final rule refines these definitions. Among the requirements, devices would have to be considered:

  • Safe and effective.
  • Not experimental or investigational.
  • Appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate and whether it is covered by commercial insurers.

The new rule aims to nationalize what some state Medicare systems are already doing and avoid the possibility that a revolutionary new product may receive Medicare coverage in one state, but not another.

Making coverage of breakthrough products national also prevents the product manufacturers from having to approach individual Medicare administrative contractors for local coverage determinations, the CMS said in a press release.

The rule takes effect March 15 and is retroactive for two years before the effective date.

Medicare Advantage, Part D Plans Get COVID-19 Leeway

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has issued new guidance regarding how Medicare Advantage and Part D plans can respond to enrollees affected by the coronavirus outbreak.

Under the guidance, the plans are authorized, but not required to waive out-of-pocket costs for testing, treatment and other services related to the coronavirus.

The rules come on the heels of many of the country’s largest insurance companies announcing that they would be treating at least COVID-19 testing as covered benefits and would waive cost-sharing for tests.

The CMS made the announcement in light of the fact that COVID-19, which is caused by the coronavirus, has the most severe effects on the elderly population, as well as people with pre-existing health conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and compromised immune systems. 

“Medicare beneficiaries are at the greatest risk of serious illness due to COVID-19 and CMS will continue doing everything in our power to protect them,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a prepared statement. She added that the new guidance was aimed removing “barriers that could prevent or delay beneficiaries from receiving care.”

In the new COVID-19 guidance Medicare Advantage and Part D plans can:

  • Waive cost-sharing for testing.
  • Waive treatment cost-sharing, including primary care, emergency department, and telehealth services.
  • Eliminate prior authorizations for treatment.
  • Eliminate prescription refill restrictions.
  • Decrease limitations around home or mail prescription delivery.
  • Increase patient access to telehealth care.

These waivers are aimed at breaking down barriers to accessing care and allow plans to work with pharmacies and providers to treat patients.

Medicare Advantage rule changes

Under the new guidance, if a state of emergency is declared in your state, Medicare Advantage insurers are required to:

  • Cover Medicare Parts A and B services and supplemental Part C plan benefits furnished at non-contracted facilities, as long as they have participation agreements with Medicare.
  • Provide the same cost-sharing for enrollees at non-plan facilities as if the service or benefit had been furnished at a plan-contracted facility.
  • Make changes that benefit the enrollee effective immediately without the typical 30-day notification requirement (such as changes like reductions in cost-sharing and waiving prior authorizations).

The CMS said it would continue toexercise its enforcement discretion regarding the administration of Medicare Advantage plans’ benefit packages in light of the new emergency guidance.

Part D changes

Under the new rules:

  • Part D insurers may relax their “refill-too-soon” rules if circumstances are reasonably expected to result in a disruption in access to drugs. The rules may vary, as long as they provide access to Part D drugs at the point of sale. Part D sponsors may also allow an affected enrollee to obtain the maximum extended day supply available under their plan, if requested and available.
  • Part D insurers must ensure enrollees have adequate access to covered Part D drugs if they have to get their prescription filled at an out-of-network pharmacy in cases when those enrollees cannot reasonably be expected to obtain covered Part D drugs at a network pharmacy.
    Plan cost-sharing levels would still apply and enrollees could be responsible for additional charges (i.e., the out-of-network pharmacy’s usual and customary charge), if any, that exceed the plan allowance.
  • If enrollees are prohibited by a mandatory quarantine from going to a pharmacy to pick up their medications, Part D insurers can relax any plan-imposed rules that may discourage mail or home delivery, for retail pharmacies that choose to offer these delivery services in these instances.
  • Part D insurers may choose to waive prior authorization requirements at any time that they otherwise would apply to Part D drugs used to treat or prevent COVID-19, if or when such drugs are identified. Any such waiver must be uniformly provided to similarly situated enrollees who are affected by the disaster or emergency.

The takeaway

With these new rules and guidelines in place, if you are a Medicare recipient, this news should give you comfort as it should mean reduced costs and access to care and medicine as the outbreak continues.

If you are concerned about coverage, you can contact your Medicare Advantage plan to confirm that it has made the necessary changes to ease the burden on policyholders during the coronavirus crisis.

High-Deductible Plans Saddling Workers with Bigger Drug Outlays

A new study has found that high-deductible plans and increased use of coinsurance are exposing health plan enrollees to higher and higher pharmaceutical costs.

One of the big problems for many enrollees in high-deductible plans is that their outlays for drugs may not count towards their health plan deductibles and, if they are enrolled in separate pharmaceutical plans, they may have to pay the full list price until they meet their drug deductible, according to the “2019 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

The report warns of a growing crisis for American workers, more and more of whom are struggling with their health expenditures, be they premiums, deductibles, copays and/or coinsurance.

Workers in small firms face relatively high deductibles for single coverage and many also are saddled with significant premiums if they choose family coverage, according to the study.

The cost of group health insurance is growing at about 4% to 5% a year, reaching $7,188 for single coverage in 2019 and $20,576 for family coverage.

Workers in small firms on average contribute 16% of the premium for single coverage, compared with workers at large firms (19%), according to the report. But small-firm employees contribute 40% on average for family coverage, compared to 26% for staff at larger firms.

That said, 35% of covered workers in small firms are in a plan where they must contribute more than one-half of the premium for family coverage, compared to 6% of covered workers in large firms.

But premium contributions are only part of the story. Eighty-two percent of covered workers have a general annual deductible for single coverage that must be met before most services are paid for by the plan, and that average deductible amount is $1,655. But, the average annual deductible among covered workers with a deductible has increased 36% over the last five years, and by 100% over the last 10 years.

The hidden cost-driver

With all this as a backdrop, the cost of prescription drugs is one of the largest challenges facing group health plan enrollees, especially those who are enrolled in high-deductible health plans, whose out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals can be especially burdensome. It is the hidden cost-driver in the system.

The Kaiser survey found that about 90% of covered workers are enrolled in plans where the health plan deductible must be met before prescription drugs are covered. But, this number has been shrinking as group coverage pricing increases and employers shift more of the cost burden to employees.

There are a few ways that employees are taking on a significant load with their drug expenditures:

  • First, more workers are enrolled in plans that carve out prescription drugs, meaning that their expenditures on medication do not count towards satisfying their health plan deductibles. About 13% of employees are enrolled in a plan with a separate annual deductible that applies only to prescription drugs.
  • Many people with workers face out-of-pocket costs linked to prescription list prices regardless of the actual net, post-rebate costs. That’s because coinsurance percentages are computed based on the price negotiated between the pharmacy and the plan or pharmacy benefit manager. These negotiated prices are typically close to list prices.

    Even worse, patients pay the entire negotiated price when they are within a deductible and do not enjoy the benefits of rebates that the PBM may have negotiated with drug makers. Patients with these benefit designs do not benefit from rebates, though major brand-name drug makers sell their products at half of the list prices.
  • In the past, health plans had two- or three-tier benefit designs for drugs, mostly for generics and brand-name drugs, with lower copays and coinsurance for the lowest-tier medicines. But as prices have started increasing, many plans have four tiers and sometimes five (the specialty tier).

    The disappearance of two- and three-tier benefit designs have made out-of-pocket expenses especially high for specialty drugs. Plans place therapies for such chronic, complex illnesses as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and HIV on the fourth and specialty tiers of benefit plan, for which the enrollee has to pay a larger share.

New Rules Allow Employers to Reimburse for Health Premiums

Starting Jan. 1, 2020, employers can establish accounts for their employees to help them pay for individual health insurance policies they purchase, as well as for other health care expenses.

A new regulation expands on how health reimbursement accounts can be used. Currently, employers and their workers can contribute to these accounts, which can be used to reimburse workers for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

With these new Individual Coverage HRAs, employers can fund the account workers would use to pay for health insurance premiums for coverage that they secure on their own.

Up until this new regulation, such arrangements were prohibited by the Affordable Care Act under the threat of sizeable fines in excess of $36,000 per employee per year.

This rule is the result of legislation signed into law by President Obama in December 2016, which created the “qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangement (QSEHRA),” which would allow small employers to reimburse for individual insurance under strict guidelines.

The Trump administration was tasked with writing the regulations, which created the Individual Coverage HRA (ICHRA).

How it works

Under the new rule, if an employer is funding an ICHRA, the plan an employee chooses must be ACA-compliant, meaning it must include coverage for the 10 essential benefits with no lifetime or annual benefit maximums — and must adhere to the consumer protections built into the law.

Once the ICHRA is created, the employer will a set amount every month into the account on a pre-tax basis, which the employee can then use to buy or supplement their purchase of health insurance benefits in the individual market.

The law allows employers to set up as many as 11 different classes of employees for the purposes of distributing funds to ICHRAs. The employer can vary how much they give to each different group. For example, one class may get $600 a month per single employee with no dependents, while members of another class may receive $400 a month.

The allowable classes are:

Full-time employees — For the purposes of satisfying the employer mandate, that means a worker who averages 30 or more hours per week.

Part-time employees — Like the above, the employer can choose how to define what part-time is.

Seasonal employees — Workers hired for short-term positions, usually during particularly busy periods.

Temps who work for a staffing firm — These employees provide temporary services for the business, but are formally employed through a staffing firm.

Salaried employees — Staff who have a have a fixed annual salary and are not typically paid overtime.

Hourly employees — Staff who are paid on an hourly basis and can earn overtime.

Employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement — Employees who are members of a labor union that has a contract with the employer.

Employees in a waiting period — This class would include workers who were recently hired and are in their waiting period before they can receive health benefits (in many companies, this is 90 days).

Foreign employees who work abroad — These employees work outside of the U.S.

Employees in different locations, based on rating areas — These employees live outside the individual health insurance rating area of the business’s physical address.

A combination of two or more of the above — Businesses can also create additional classes by combining two or more of the above classes.

The rules for ICHRAs are as follows:

  • Any employee covered by the ICHRA must be enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased in the individual market, and must verify that they have such coverage (as mentioned above, that coverage must be ACA-compliant);
  • The employer may not offer the same class of workers both an ICHRA and a traditional group health plan;
  • The employer must offer the ICHRA on the same terms to all employees in a class;
  • Employees must be allowed to opt out of receiving an ICHRA;
  • Employers must provide detailed information to employees on how the ICHRA works;
  • Employers may not create a class of employees younger than 25, whom they might want to keep in their group plan because they’re healthier;
  • A class cannot have less than 10 employees in companies with fewer than 100 workers. For employers with 100 to 200 employees, the minimum class size is 10% of the workforce, while for employers with 200 or more staff, the minimum size is 20 employees;
  • While benefits must be distributed fairly to employees that fall within each class, each class can be broken down further by age and family size. That means employees with families can be offered a higher amount per month and rates can be scaled by age.

New Rules Aim for Hospital, Insurer Transparency

The Trump administration on Nov. 15 announced two rules that would require more transparency in hospital pricing and health insurance out-of-pocket costs for enrollees.

The final rule on hospital pricing will require hospitals to publish their standard fees both on-demand and online starting Jan. 1, 2021, as well as the rates they negotiate with insurers. The administration also proposed rules that would require health insurers to provide their enrollees instant, online access to an estimate of their out-of-pocket costs for various services. 

The latter are just proposed rules and will have to go through a comment period before final rules can be issued. 

The two sets of rules are part of the Trump administration’s efforts to bring more transparency into the health care and insurance industry. They are in response to more and more consumers’ stories of serious financial strife after receiving surprise bills from hospitals and other providers, particularly if they had to go to a non-network physician or hospital.

Both rules could benefit health plan enrollees by giving them more information on hospital services, particularly if they are in high-deductible plans and can shop around for a future procedure, such as a mammogram or knee replacement surgery.

Hospital pricing transparency

In the original proposed regulations, the administration had proposed the effective date of the hospital price transparency rule as Jan. 1, 2020, but health providers said they would need more time to ramp up.

The new rules, effective Jan. 1, 2021, will require hospitals to publish in a consumer-friendly manner their standard charges price list of at least 300 “shoppable services,” meaning services that can be scheduled in advance, such as a CAT scan or hip replacement surgery.

The list must include 70 services or procedures that are preselected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hospitals will have to disclose what they’d be willing to accept if the patient pays cash. The information will be updated every year.

Hospitals will be required to publish their charges in a format that can be read online. This rule could pave the way for apps that patients can use to compare services between hospital systems.

Under the rule, hospitals will have to disclose the rates they negotiate with third party payers.

The new rules face some uncertainty, however. The health care trade press has reported that a number of trade groups such as the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, among others, announced in a joint statement that they would sue the government, alleging that the new rules exceed the bounds of the CMS’s authority.

Out-of-pocket transparency

The proposed rule would require insurers to provide their health plan enrollees with instant online access to estimates of their out-of-pocket costs.

The regulations would require health insurers to create online tools their policyholders can use to get a real-time personalized estimate of their out-of-pocket costs for all covered health care services and products, such as:

  • Hospitalization
  • Doctor visits
  • Lab tests
  • Surgeries
  • Pharmaceuticals.

They would also be required to disclose on a public website negotiated rates for their in-network providers, as well as the maximum amounts they would pay to an out-of-network doctor or hospital. 

The proposed regs would also let insurers share cost savings with their enrollees if the individuals shop around for services that cost less than at other providers. This would give enrollees an incentive to shop around.

This proposed rule is also certain to face push-back from the insurance industry.

These out-of-pocket transparency regs are just proposals, so they have to go through the standard rule-making procedure of soliciting public comments before eventually issuing the final rules.